Pro and Con

Today, there is a lot of guff about whether the F-35 really is a superior fighter compared to European, French and Swedish competitors.

Critics are saying the F-35 is not as fast, not as manoeuverable, that it is unreliable with only one engine and that it is more expensive than the alternatives. Well, the best almost always is more expensive. What sets apart the F-35 is not only its stealth but information technologies that connect the pilot with satellite surveillance, airborne radar or the sensor suite on a distant F-35. The aircraft also can intercept, decode and then hoodwink enemy radar into presenting a false picture. Enemies won't know what hit them. It's like Harry Potter against muggles.

As for the reliability over the vast Canadian arctic of one versus two engines, this was an issue in early days of jet engine development, since resolved. Single-engine fighters of more recent vintage are just as reliable as twin-engined fighters, in some cases, more so.

The single-engine F-16, for instance, after early teething problems, now has the best safety record of any contemporary American fighter.

A single engine also confers advantages of cost, maintenance, weight, streamlining and fuel efficiency while providing as much or more power, with the chance of engine failure compared to a twin.

Capabilities are the highest priority, but there also are geographic and political reasons for choosing an American warplane for Canada. Do we really want a European warplane if war breaks out in Europe? Replacement parts will be hard to get if the supplier is occupied or under threat of military retaliation. Better to deal with our nearest, oldest and most vital defence partner.